City reps debate anti-nepotism law

In relative terms: Board discusses which relationships to cover

Kate King

Updated 10:40 pm, Monday, July 22, 2013

STAMFORD -- The Board of Representatives' Personnel Committee got personal Monday night as members discussed what types of relationships should be covered -- and disclosed -- under a potential anti-nepotism ordinance.

Human Resources Director Emmet Hibson, enlisted to help draft an ordinance aimed at preventing family members from hiring and supervising each other, sat with the committee to go over the nitty-gritty details of what constitutes a relative and a relationship. Should potential hires applying for jobs at City Hall have to disclose that their roommates, great-grandparents or even sexual partners work for the city?

"I have a great concern about privacy of information," city Rep. Art Layton, R-17 said. "I would certainly be concerned about that being put out in public."

The committee has spent several months discussing legislation that would prevent city employees from hiring, supervising or promoting relatives. On Monday, it discussed a long list of relationships that could present conflicts under the proposed ordinance, including great-grandparents, roommates and people with whom city employees have a "consensual sexual relationship."

City Rep. Eileen Heaphy, D-8, said she found the definition of "relative" too broad.

"I'm not sure grandparents, great-grandparents, great-grandchildren really have any role to play here," she said. "The very close relationships to me are the ones that count. It seems to me you have everybody in here."

Committee members also struggled with how to appropriately enforce the anti-nepotism policy. Hibson suggested sending out an annual "compliance questionnaire" to all workers.

"The only way I think you have of monitoring this is a yearly form that's filled out and signed. That's how we dealt with it in New Haven," said Hibson, who worked in that city before Stamford. "We had a form that every elected official and employee had to fill out. A list was generated and sent up to the mayor's office."

Layton said he wouldn't want the forms to be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

"When we hire somebody, it's fine to ask that information," he said. "After that, it then becomes an ethics issue."

Hibson asked how the city would be able to prevent employees from hiring or promoting their relatives or romantic partners. Layton said the issue would have to go before the Board of Ethics.

"Someone has to complain," Layton said. "They have to say, `Someone got hired over me because they're sleeping with them.' "

Committee members eventually agreed the questionnaire's usage should be limited to occasions when employees are hired or promoted.

The entire anti-nepotism ordinance is still in draft form -- far from final approval -- and city Rep. Mary Fedeli, R-17, the committee chairwoman, said discussion will likely span several more meetings. But at least two city representatives said they didn't think anti-nepotism rules should be enforced at all through city ordinance.

"I feel so strongly that we're making a mistake with this ordinance," said city Rep. Harry Day, R-13. "What we should be doing is having an ordinance that requires the human resources department to create a policy regarding nepotism. We will never have the opportunity to be nimble and responsive to new situations that we haven't thought of ... if this is embedded in an ordinance."

Heaphy also said she thought anti-nepotism rules belonged in the realm of city policy. Fedeli said the committee had explored addressing the issue through policy, but ultimately decided an ordinance was needed.

"My feeling is if I put an ordinance in effect to tell (human resources) to do that, how long is that going to take?" she said. "It hasn't happened, and we've needed one for the past two years. You could say it's because we didn't enact it by an ordinance."